Message from @Death in June
Discord ID: 631725362484740096
Do I have to quote you back to yourself?
you can just specify what you're talking about
You're saying: people with lower IQs are less economically successful
You're saying: black people have lower IQs (in general)
You're saying: therefore being black leads to poverty
more or less
Those arguments don't follow
They're not connected in the way you think they are
I'm trying to show you how they can be correlated, and not part of a causal chain
yeah they can be
But they aren't
they are correlated
Correlated, yes
Not necessarily caused
not necessarily caused
but i believe that they are
That's your perspective. I don't think they are
Maybe show something more than just opinion then?
i think the causal link between iq and economic success is clear
It's absolutely not clear
In order to prove causation, you have to show the direct link between being good at taking IQ tests to making more money
show the direct link how
You have to show how being good at taking IQ tests somehow directly translates into making money
how
Are these people receiving money based on their IQ test performance?
you are just saying the same thing over and over again without elaborating on how one would show this
Yeah, because you can't. Economic success is so far downstream of taking an IQ test that you can't show that link
lol
Like I said, you might as well be saying that people who can recite the alphabet backwards are more economically successful
and the hand is shown
People who are good knife-throwers are more economically successful
People who wore shirt sizes too big for them in high school
anyone remember the movie "The Madness of King George" ? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgZvg7SR_DE
Nigel Hawthorne was great in this
Your argument doesn't follow
i don't think these variables are equivalent to iq in this regard
there's a clearer causal link once can deduce through reason with iq
They're exactly as valid as IQ tests
People who wear glasses are more successful
but like a typical progressive, your entire shtick is to assume the progressive position as a default and to set the burden of proof for any opposing position so high it can't be met